Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation

By C. Lockwood, Z. Munn, K. Porritt. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 2015

1,953 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4826be01230409fb75da45f1c4f078d5e3e98c93

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

1. Z. Munn
2. C. Lockwood
3. M. Peters
4. H. Khalil
5. Andrea C. Tricco
6. P. McInerney
7. C. Godfrey

In Statistics and Probability

1. Z. Munn
2. C. Lockwood
3. M. Peters
4. H. Khalil
5. Andrea C. Tricco
6. Cindy Stern
7. C. Godfrey
8. E. Aromataris

Citations in the corpus

• Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics (2021, background): “If a review requirement is to examine or explore the experiences of a given population, then a qualitative systematic review may be more appropriate (Lockwood et al., 2015).”
• What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018, background): “Similarly, this type of review can explain and explore why an intervention is not adopted in spite of evidence of its effectiveness [4, 13, 25].”